Modern Musings wrote: “Reading yesterday’s paper I found an article that spoke of the new Iran sanctions being prepared by the United Nations. Two sentences in this article got my blood boiling. I like being informed, I like keeping tabs on our government but I get so emotional, baby, that sometimes I can’t intelligently respond to the absurdities I encounter. So this is what the article stated:
“Acting U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff said the United States rejected amendments by Indonesia and Qatar calling for the Middle East to be free of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. U.S. officials said Iran’s nuclear program should be the sole focus.”
Just a few questions…
- Why isn’t mandating a nuclear free Middle East a good thing?
- Wouldn’t adopting such an amendment allow Iran to comply without losing her sovereignty as a nation in the eyes of her people?
- Would Israel’s nuclear weapon stores be the cause of rejecting said amendment?”
United Nations complicity in war crimes: interview with Hans von Sponeck, or here
Count Hans-Christof von Sponeck, has been working for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for 32 years. Appointed in 1998 as United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, with the status of UN Assistant to the Secretary General, he resigned in March 2000 in protest against the sanctions, which had led the Iraqi people to misery and starvation. He speakes about the sufferings endured by the Iraqis and he appeals to the political leaders responsible for the catastrophe.
More about the UN: UNSC Role Change, Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
Iran, Israel, The Big Lie and The Real Threat, by Frank Scott, Information Clearing House: “Attempting to portray Iran as a nuclear menace to Israel and the world, in that order, even though it has no nuclear weapons and Israel has hundreds, is not merely a sign of dementia. It is indication of near idiocy in a society that can be repeatedly manipulated into believing such totally crackpot notions that have no foundation in the material world but exist only in a world of superstitious psycho-fantasy.”
Keeping All Options on the Table: A Roadmap to Negotiation or War?
Farideh Farhi, Foreign Policy in Focus, March 6: ” … if the Iranian leadership thinks that negotiations and compromise on the nuclear issue will indeed lead to a breakthrough in relations with the United States and on the abandoning of its policy of weakening the Iranian regime. Without such an incentive, the hardliners in Iran will be able to run the show based on the argument that no matter how many concessions are given, American hostility will not end…”
Control energy and you control the nations. Kissinger
What is most important to the history of the world? The Talliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold-war? – 1998 Brzezenski
Frederick William Engdahl has written on issues of energy, politics and economics for more than 30 years, beginning with the first oil shock in the early 1970s.
After a degree in politics from Princeton and graduate study in comparative economics at the University of Stockholm, he worked as an economist and free-lance journalist. He currently lives in Germany and in addition to writing regularly on issues of economics, energy and international affairs, is active as a consulting geopolitical risk economist.
Engdahl is the author of the best-selling book on oil and geopolitics: A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order.
The University of Michigan Press: This book is a gripping account of the murky world of the international oil industry and its role in world politics.